Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Even granting that a normative fact exists (e.g., that de... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Appeals to normative facts cannot explain how those facts count as reasons or motivate rational agents.

    Even granting that a normative fact exists (e.g., that deception is morally wrong), awareness of that fact does not by itself rationally compel an agent to act accordingly.

    Moral ResponsibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Appeals to normative facts cannot explain how those facts count as reasons or mo...Realists anchor practical reasons in facts that are intrinsically normative.The question of how a normative fact compels action is itself a normative questi...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Moral Responsibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    Self-deception inhibits the ability of agents to stand by or apply the...83%Even if postulating normative facts is less parsimonious than not doin...82%Appeals to normative facts cannot explain how those facts count as rea...81%Self-deception allows people to ignore the promptings of their moral s...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: constructivism-metaethics
    View source passageHide passage
    Korsgaard’s case for constructivism parallels Kant’s argument for the autonomy of practical reason, as Rawls reconstructs it. It starts by objecting that substantive realism fails to respond to the skeptical challenge that there really are no reasons to be moral. This is because realism simply assumes the existence of objective standards for morality without offering a rational basis for them; hence the realist affirms what the skeptic denies. As a consequence, the realist also fails to show why

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective